Tag Archives: no confidence

Bible prophecy shows that Europe and the Middle East are to be the main focus of end-time events. Recent and future developments show continuing upheaval in both regions.

In a parliamentary system, there is provision for a vote of no confidence in the prime minister. Mrs. Theresa May survived a vote this week. 200 MPs supported her, with 117 voting against.

The fact that she has survived to see Brexit through to completion, however, is not necessarily a good thing. Mrs. May has been racking up the frequent flyer miles flying around to European capitals in pursuit of a “deal,” a deal that will keep the UK close to Europe after the people voted to leave it!

The Europeans have said that they will not offer anything better than the deal they offered a few weeks ago, a deal that will, effectively, make the United Kingdom a vassal state of the European Union. Some deal!

Why is the British prime minister so intent on a “deal” that will enslave the country for decades to come? Why can’t England walk away from the EU, which is what the voters voted for in the referendum of 2016? Doesn’t anybody have any recollection of how the United Kingdom was a successful trading nation prior to the EU? Clearly not – as they don’t think that Britain is up to it any more!

As the game picture at the top of this article shows, there is a great deal of negativity in the UK right now. Positive voices are few and far between. (The game resembles the London Underground map.)

The only hope left is if the country ends up with “no deal” on March 29th. Then, she will be free to pursue other trade deals with nations around the globe.

———————————————————————–

GERMANY MOVING IN A NEW DIRECTION

Britain isn’t the only country finding it hard to break away from a super-power.

Germany, too, is feeling “impotent rage at not being able to declare independence from America.” These words are the opinion of Andreas Kluth, editor-in-chief of Handelsblatt Global. His article on the subject appears in the Economist special edition, predicting trends for 2019. The title of the article is “The epiphany of German weakness.”

“In 2019 Germany will face a crisis: not an economic or political one, but an intellectual and psychological crisis that could be just as wrenching. For the first time, the German public at large will fully absorb what Berlin elites have known for years: Germany has no viable foreign or security policy to survive the passing of Pax Americana.”

Since World War II, Germany has submitted herself to the leadership of two other western powers. First, the United States. Through membership of NATO and other international institutions, Germany has played a vital but secondary role in international affairs. Secondly, to France, through the European Union.

Mrs. Merkel is leaving office at a time when these two pillars are crumbling. The United States, under Donald Trump, has “nullified every assumption that Germany … made since 1945.” Germany, now under great pressure from the US to contribute more to western defense, can actually now break free from US dominance and go her own way. But in which direction should she go? Mrs. Merkel’s successor will have to pave a new path for the country.

At the same time as relations with Washington are changing, so are relations with neighboring France. Mr. Macron, the French president, began his presidency 18 months ago with a bold new vision for Europe. This vision is now in ruins as the people revolt against his leadership and the economy is seriously threatened by continued riots. At the very least, Mr. Macron will have to focus his attention more on France itself; there will be little or no time for Europe.

This coincides with Brexit, which will see the United Kingdom leaving Europe.

So, out of the Big 3, only one is left able to lead the European project. And that country is Germany.

—————————————————————–

US PULLING OUT OF MIDEAST?

A second article in TheEconomist’s “The World in 2019,” predicts “The end of American hegemony” in the Middle East. This process began a few years ago.

“In 1972 Anwar Sadat expelled Soviet military advisers from Egypt, setting the state for decades of American dominance, and much violent disappointment, in the Middle East. In 2013 President Barack Obama surrendered America’s hegemony when he refused to take military action against Syria’s use of poison gas, and later sought a nuclear accommodation with Iran. Donald Trump, by contrast, has lobbed missiles at Syria and menaced Iran. But as he swings between threatening to crush foes, and getting out entirely, the latter instinct will dominate. Sometimes events, his advisers or domestic politics may compel him to take action. But Mr. Trump will mostly prove even more detached than Mr. Obama.” (Article by Anton LaGuardia, deputy foreign editor, The Economist.)

American detachment from the Middle East will likely result in continuing conflicts in Yemen, Libya, Syria; it could also mean no deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians; and we will likely see Iran strengthened both domestically and regionally, with Hezbollah posing a greater threat to Israel.

American detachment will also see Russia filling the gap, with European nations desperate to halt Russian encroachment into the area.

Donald Trump has a new rival, a fellow New Yorker no less. Like Mr. Trump, the newcomer is causing just as much turmoil in political circles. He can even rival The Donald with his famous hair.

Boris Johnson (born 19 June, 1964, in New York) is a British politician, popular historian and journalist who has served as Mayor of London since 2008 and as Member of Parliament (MP) for Uxbridge and South Ruislip since 2015. Mr. Johnson is a popular figure in British politics.

Mr. Johnson attended the same exclusive private school that Prime Minister David Cameron attended. Later they both attended Oxford University at the same time. They are two members of Britain’s elite and have been best friends for decades. That could change now.

While Mr. Cameron is fighting to keep Britain in the European Union (EU), Boris Johnson on Sunday declared himself opposed. Mr. Johnson will support the “Leave” campaign. He is in favor of a Brexit, a British exit from the organization.

As the Wall Street Journal put it: “Mr. Johnson is the most prominent politician to break with the prime minister ahead of the June 23 referendum.”

It should be noted that if the vote goes against Mr. Cameron, he will likely face a “No Confidence” vote in parliament. If he loses, Mr. Johnson could be his replacement as prime minister. Unlike Americans, the Brits don’t have laws precluding those born overseas from holding office. Besides, Mr. Johnson’s parents were both upper middle class English. Mr. Johnson recently wrote a biography of fellow Conservative Winston Churchill, a predecessor who also had definite American connections. (His book, “The Churchill Factor” is well worth reading.)

If this sounds awfully like the 1930’s all over again, there are definite similarities, though nobody is threatening violence this time, not right now anyway.

The pro-European faction in parliament is led by Mr. Cameron. He returned from Brussels late on Friday, promising the equivalent of Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time.” The prime minister announced that agreement had been reached with EU leaders that will serve Britain well. Consequently, Mr. Cameron will recommend Britain remain a member of the European club.

It came as a surprise on Sunday when Boris Johnson came out publicly against continued membership. Like Mr. Churchill in 1938 he is concerned to protect Britain’s sovereignty in light of European developments toward a trans-national super-state. This time it’s not Berlin that concerns him so much as Brussels, the capital of the EU. But Berlin is a factor as the European project is dominated by Germany.

The European Union began with the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which pledges member countries to form “an ever closer union.” This does not mean a United States of Europe along USA lines. This could never happen, as the dynamics are very different. What is far more likely to emerge is something akin to the Holy Roman Empire, which lasted for a thousand years until it was broken up by Napoleon in 1806.

Dictionary.com defines the Holy Roman Empire as follows:

“a Germanic empire located chiefly in central Europe that began with the coronation of Charlemagne as Roman emperor in AD 800 . . . and ended with the renunciation of the Roman imperial title by Francis II in 1806, and was regarded theoretically as the continuation of the Western Empire and as the temporal form of a universal dominion whose spiritual head was the pope.”

The EU has been working toward something similar since its inception almost six decades ago. It’s already the world’s biggest single market and trading power. The common currency called the euro rivals the US dollar as a global currency. Politically it’s more united than ever and there is some progress toward a European military.

For Britain, all this is bad news. Not even the pro-EU politicians want the UK to be a part of a European super-state. They want to keep their independence or, rather, what’s left of it. They want to stay out of the euro and do not want to go any further toward an “ever closer union” or join a European military force. Mr. Cameron received assurances from the other 27 members of the EU that Britain can stay out of all three. He was also given some relief on the financial costs to British tax-payers having to pay benefits to EU migrants from the East, but only for seven years.

But anti-EU politicians and members of the public are still insecure about the future.

It’s not surprising really when you consider Britain’s history. For centuries Britain looked beyond the seas to its colonies and, later, the Commonwealth and the United States, remaining outside of Europe, only getting involved when threatened by a Napoleon, the Kaiser or Hitler.

In 1962, former US Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, observed that: “Britain has lost an empire and not yet found a role.” In the same year, US President John Kennedy expressed his support for Britain joining what was then called the Common Market. Canada’s Prime Minister, John Diefenbaker, was very much against Britain joining, expressing his concern that it could mean the end of the Commonwealth of which Canada was a founding member.

America wanted Britain “in” so as to have a reliable pro-American voice in the European club. The US also wanted free trade to boost American exports to Europe.

If the United Kingdom votes to leave the EU, there will likely be far greater repercussions than can presently be seen. These will not just be economic. 44% of Britain’s exports go to other EU nations – a “no” vote could jeopardize these exports as tariffs exist on imports from non-member countries.

Other repercussions could include the following:

The EU could be less co-operative with the USA.

A British exit from the EU could encourage a Scottish exit from the UK, as it seems most Scots want to stay in the EU.

Ireland would be negatively affected, with 40% of its imports coming from the UK and 17% of its exports going to Britain.

Germany will become more dominant. Only Britain and France are big enough right now to restrain the central European giant. Take away Britain and it’s down to France. France’s priority right now is Islamic terrorism. Germany will be able to go full steam ahead toward its dream of a revived European empire, already referred to by some as the Fourth Reich. The Holy Roman Empire was the first reich (or empire), that lasted a thousand years; the Kaisers were the second reich; Hitler promised his Third Reich would last a thousand years like the first one, but it only lasted twelve.

There will be a lot of bad feeling if Britain leaves. Other EU members will not be inclined to bend over backwards to help the Brits through a difficult transition period. Concessions on trade will be unlikely. It could also end shared security arrangements at a time when there are increased security risks with Islamic militancy.

International companies operating in Britain could move to other countries. Many companies have based themselves in the UK to gain advantage in selling goods to other EU countries. Faced with high tariffs to keep out non-EU goods, they are likely to move elsewhere, leaving greater unemployment in their wake.

There is also a possibility that some other EU members may follow Britain out the door. Whereas countries at the center of Europe have a long history of strong government from the center, those on the northern periphery have not. Although some may sympathize with the British position, they may decide it’s not economically feasible to leave as trade with Germany and other nations is too great.

Some of the southern members may also opt to leave so that they can print their own money and boost employment.

Bible prophecy shows that a revived European super-state will include ten nations.

“The ten horns which you saw are ten kings who have received no kingdom as yet, but they receive authority for one hour as kings with the beast. These are of one mind, and they will give their power and authority to the beast.” (Revelation 17:12-13)

However, this does not rule out the possibility of other countries being closely tied to the ten. This would be very similar to the Holy Roman Empire where some territories were ruled directly from the center, but others were more loosely attached.

Additionally, dozens of countries around the world are tied to the EU through the Lomé Convention, named after the capital of Togo. The agreement came into being a couple of years after Britain joined the EU. It tied British former colonies to the European trading system, along with French, Belgian and Portuguese. The EU is by far the leading world trading power.

It’s surprising then that there’s little interest in the outcome of the British referendum in the American media. Any mention of the European Union solicits a big yawn. But the reality is that Boris Johnson may out-Trump Donald Trump in the upheaval he may cause across the pond!

—————————————————————-

TRAGEDY IN KALAMAZOO

Kalamazoo is a big city that’s only an hour’s drive from where we live. Saturday night it fell victim to the latest American mass shooting, when a 45-year-old Uber driver shot dead six people and seriously injured two others. In between killing people, he picked up and drove passengers to their destinations.

The lack of motive is disturbing. So is the following paragraph from the BBC’s website:

“One of the seriously injured, a 14-year-old girl, was believed to have been dead for more than an hour when she squeezed her mother’s hand as doctors were preparing to harvest her organs, police officer Dale Hinz told Michigan Live.”